Posted by Uofa2 on 11/22/2021 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/22/2021 3:47:00 PM (view original):
One could argue that illegally carrying an assault weapon to a protest is, in and of itself, contributing to an environment that is dangerous to human life.

EDIT: you removed the post to which this was a reply. I'll leave it here for now in case you're just making changes before reposting it.

He didn’t illegally carry an assault weapon. The charge was dropped because he was legally allowed to possess the weapon. He couldn’t purchase the weapon, but he could legally carry it.

P.S. Assault weapon is a loaded term and inaccurate here. An assault weapon is a gun that can be converted to a fully automatic weapon. The gun that Rittenhouse had did not have that capacity.

And his friend is being charged with an illegal straw man sale of the gun to Kyle, correct?

I have a hard time seeing this actually go to trial considering that it has already been proven in court that it wasn’t illegal for Kyle to have the gun.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/22/2021 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/22/2021 3:47:00 PM (view original):
One could argue that illegally carrying an assault weapon to a protest is, in and of itself, contributing to an environment that is dangerous to human life.

EDIT: you removed the post to which this was a reply. I'll leave it here for now in case you're just making changes before reposting it.

He didn’t illegally carry an assault weapon. The charge was dropped because he was legally allowed to possess the weapon. He couldn’t purchase the weapon, but he could legally carry it.

P.S. Assault weapon is a loaded term and inaccurate here. An assault weapon is a gun that can be converted to a fully automatic weapon. The gun that Rittenhouse had did not have that capacity.

And his friend is being charged with an illegal straw man sale of the gun to Kyle, correct?

I have a hard time seeing this actually go to trial considering that it has already been proven in court that it wasn’t illegal for Kyle to have the gun.

Kyle having or not having the gun has nothing to do with an illegal straw man sale of the gun.

super cool seeing people bend over backwards for people to have guns.

Posted by tangplay on 11/22/2021 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

Yuuuuup

I'm very glad that violence over the verdict was limited and mild.

I believe Kenosha had zero incidences which is great.

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 4:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/22/2021 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/22/2021 3:47:00 PM (view original):
One could argue that illegally carrying an assault weapon to a protest is, in and of itself, contributing to an environment that is dangerous to human life.

EDIT: you removed the post to which this was a reply. I'll leave it here for now in case you're just making changes before reposting it.

He didn’t illegally carry an assault weapon. The charge was dropped because he was legally allowed to possess the weapon. He couldn’t purchase the weapon, but he could legally carry it.

P.S. Assault weapon is a loaded term and inaccurate here. An assault weapon is a gun that can be converted to a fully automatic weapon. The gun that Rittenhouse had did not have that capacity.

And his friend is being charged with an illegal straw man sale of the gun to Kyle, correct?

I have a hard time seeing this actually go to trial considering that it has already been proven in court that it wasn’t illegal for Kyle to have the gun.

Kyle having or not having the gun has nothing to do with an illegal straw man sale of the gun.

super cool seeing people bend over backwards for people to have guns.

I’ll always bend over backwards for people’s rights to have guns. It’s a constitutional right. Barring convicted violent offenders, I will defend anyone’s right to a gun. I’m also not afraid of people with guns.

Posted by tangplay on 11/22/2021 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

That claim wasn’t bullshit at all. I easily could have seen a compromised verdict because of it. I mean hell, the judge was receiving dozens of death threats. You’re insane if you don’t think public pressure can sway a jury.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/22/2021 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

That claim wasn’t bullshit at all. I easily could have seen a compromised verdict because of it. I mean hell, the judge was receiving dozens of death threats. You’re insane if you don’t think public pressure can sway a jury.

It's like making fun of the guy who boarded his windows for a pending storm and then when the storm doesn't materialize, claiming he was "hoping" for the direct hit and what bullshit his window prep was.

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/22/2021 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

That claim wasn’t bullshit at all. I easily could have seen a compromised verdict because of it. I mean hell, the judge was receiving dozens of death threats. You’re insane if you don’t think public pressure can sway a jury.

It's like making fun of the guy who boarded his windows for a pending storm and then when the storm doesn't materialize, claiming he was "hoping" for the direct hit and what bullshit his window prep was.

100% not like that because an impending storm has some scientific reasoning for backing it up.

The jury feeling threatened to make a decision because of possible riots was always in the heads of only a few and yes since nothing happened I can point out that it wasn’t based in any reality.

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/23/2021 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/22/2021 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

That claim wasn’t bullshit at all. I easily could have seen a compromised verdict because of it. I mean hell, the judge was receiving dozens of death threats. You’re insane if you don’t think public pressure can sway a jury.

It's like making fun of the guy who boarded his windows for a pending storm and then when the storm doesn't materialize, claiming he was "hoping" for the direct hit and what bullshit his window prep was.

100% not like that because an impending storm has some scientific reasoning for backing it up.

The jury feeling threatened to make a decision because of possible riots was always in the heads of only a few and yes since nothing happened I can point out that it wasn’t based in any reality.

The reality is there was much misinformation spread and unnecessary division and tension over this case.
I imagine the local folks weren't swayed by the nonsense and that's awesome.

Yet protests took place around the country mourning this "miscarriage of justice" and "blatant example of how far we still have to go".
Talk about bullshit.

In Portland a few even got violent throwing rocks at police and smashing windows.
In NY "protesters" vandalized police supporters homes.

But yeah, keep telling yourself the concern wasn't based in any reality.

I’m not so perturbed by a few people acting out for a few days.
Im still more interested in the January 6 commission because that was real serious violence.

Wait, are you claiming that January 6th was more violent than the riots last summer? I really hope not. Please let me keep believing that you’re smarter than that.

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/23/2021 9:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 8:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/22/2021 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/22/2021 7:59:00 PM (view original):
What sane person hoped their were riots?

I don't know about hoping, but bruceleefan was pushing the whole "jury might acquit because they're scared of rioting" stance pretty hard. That claim is even more bullshit in hindsight.

That claim wasn’t bullshit at all. I easily could have seen a compromised verdict because of it. I mean hell, the judge was receiving dozens of death threats. You’re insane if you don’t think public pressure can sway a jury.

It's like making fun of the guy who boarded his windows for a pending storm and then when the storm doesn't materialize, claiming he was "hoping" for the direct hit and what bullshit his window prep was.

No one is criticizing businesses that boarded up or whatever. We're criticizing you for pushing the "jury is motivated by fear of rioting" angle which kinda has to come true if it has relevance.

You had zero reason to believe that at the time and now it just looks worse.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/23/2021 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Wait, are you claiming that January 6th was more violent than the riots last summer? I really hope not. Please let me keep believing that you’re smarter than that.

Not overall but proportionately? Yeah. The BLM movement was the largest in American history and Jan 6 was one riot, and it could still be argued that Jan 6 was more dangerous.